Revision has been studied mostly from a language centric viewpoint. It is an understudied topic and oftentimes viewed as an afterthought in classrooms rather than a central facet at the heart of quality writing. The focus of this article is on teaching revision via multimodality as a way to serve all students, especially gifted students. This article highlights 27 gifted students’ multimodal artifacts and discussions about the revision process in writing when paired with multimodality. The premise is that teaching revision using multiple modes of communication can lead to deeper, abstract thinking, where students can visualize their writing, thus leading to more revision choices. It is hoped that teachers can routinely use this strategy during writing instruction.
AlbersP. (2001). Literacy in the arts. Primary Voices K-6, 9(4), 3-9.
2.
AllenJ. K. (2017). Exploring the role teacher perceptions play in the underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted programming. Gifted Child Today, 40, 77-86.
3.
BatchelorK. E.KingA. (2014). Freshmen and five hundred words: Investigating flash fiction as a genre for high school writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 111-121.
4.
BaroneD.WrightT. E. (2008). Literacy instruction with digital and media technologies. The Reading Teacher, 62, 292-302.
5.
BergerS. L. (2006). College planning for gifted students: Choosing and getting into the right college. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
6.
BerghoffB. (1998). Multiple sign systems and reading. The Reading Teacher, 51, 520-523.
7.
BerghoffB. (2007). Taking an aesthetic stance toward teaching and assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(7), 1-12.
8.
BettsG. T.NeihartM. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 248-253.
9.
Center for Gifted Education. (1999). Guide to teaching a language arts curriculum for high ability learners. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
10.
CowanK.AlbersP. (2006). Semiotic representations: Building complex literacy practices through the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60, 124-137. doi:10.1598/RT.60.2.3
11.
CsikszentmihalyiM.RathundeK.WhalenS. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CumminsJ. (2006). Identity texts: The imaginative construction of self through multiliteracies pedagogy. In GarciaO.Skutnabb-KangasT.Torres-GuzmanM. E. (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools: Languages in education and glocalization (pp. 51-68). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
13.
DamicoJ.RiddleR. (2006). Exploring freedom and leaving a legacy: Enacting new literacies with digital texts in the elementary classroom. Language Arts, 84, 34-44.
14.
DelisleJ.GalbraithJ. (2002). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
15.
EcoU. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
16.
EisnerE. W. (1997). Cognition and representation: A way to pursue the American dream?Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 349-353.
17.
EisnerE. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18.
FitzgeraldJ.MarkhamL. R. (1987). Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3-24.
19.
FitzgeraldJ.StammC. (1990). Effects of group conferences on first graders’ revision in writing. Written Communication, 7(1), 96-135.
20.
GalbraithJ. (2000). You know your child is gifted when . . .: A beginner’s guide to life on the bright side. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
21.
GeeJ. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Falmer. (Original work published 1996)
22.
GoldbergN. (1986). Writing down the bones: Freeing the writer within. Boston, MA: Shambhala.
23.
HaarC.HorningA. (2006). Introduction and overview. In HorningA.BeckerA. (Eds.), Revision: History, theory, and practice (pp. 3-9). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
24.
HarsteJ. C. (1994). Literacy as curricular conversations about knowledge, inquiry, and morality. In RuddellR. B.RuddellM. R.SingerH. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 1220-1242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
25.
KeenJ. (2010). Strategic revisions in the writing of Year 7 students in the UK. The Curriculum Journal, 21, 255-280.
26.
KindzierskiC. M. (2009). “I like it the way it is!” Peer-revision writing strategies for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54, 51-59.
27.
KingS. (2000). On writing: A memoir of the craft. New York, NY: Pocket Books.
28.
KistW. (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple media. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29.
KressG. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, England: Routledge.
30.
LelandC. H.HarsteJ. C. (1994). Multiple ways of knowing: Curriculum in a new key. Language Arts, 71, 337-345.
31.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
NewkirkT. (1989). The first five minutes: Setting the agenda in a writing conference. In AnsonC. (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 317-331). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
34.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92.
35.
OlthouseJ. M. (2013). Multiliteracies theory and gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 36, 246-253.
36.
SemaliL. (2002). Transmediation in the classroom: A semiotics-based media literacy framework. New York, NY: P. Lang.
37.
ShortK. G.BurkeC. (1991). Creating curriculum: Teachers and students as a community of learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
38.
ShortK. G.KauffmanG. (2000). Exploring sign systems within an inquiry system. In GallegoM. A.HollingsworthS. (Eds.), What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp. 42-61). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
39.
SiegelM. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy Education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65-77.
40.
SiegleD. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century: A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 27(2), 32-35.
41.
StreetB. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 1-14.
42.
SuhorC. (1984). Towards a semiotics-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16, 247-257.
43.
SumidaA. Y.MeyerM. A. (2006). T4 = teaching to the fourth power: Transformative inquiry and the stirring of cultural waters. Language Arts, 83, 437-449.
44.
Van Tassel-BaskaJ. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
45.
YagelskiR. (1995). The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 216-238.
46.
ZinsserW. (1976). On writing well: An informal guide to writing nonfiction. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
